Planning March to May 2010

PLANNING MONITORING GROUP  25 March to 5^th May 2010

CAG – 2 meetings, 6^th April and 27 April.

6^th April

00246 – Land rear of 18 Princes Crescent Hove –demolition of garage and construction of 2 storey 2 bed house

A previous application was refused in 2009, mainly because access to the new house was positioned adjacent to a designated parking bay and where there is no footway. These two factors increased the risk both to users of the public highway and the occupiers of the proposed house. The applicant was advised that to overcome this the proposed entrance door needed to be set back in line with the wrought iron gate.  HCS had no objection to the application last time although we disliked the design, but the house would be sited behind the boundary wall and only a small part of the upper part of it would be seen from the road. Provided the officers are satisfied that the entrance door has been sited as advised, HCS saw no need to object and CAG agreed to make no comment this time.

00371 –Flat 15 25/26 Brunswick Square Hove – rear elevation works to stabilise pier and replacement of existing lintel

This is a Grade 1 listed building so the works require Listed Building Consent. The applicants have been advised by Lesley Johnston and consulted English Heritage, the works are all hidden from the street so will not affect the appearance of the building or the area. HCS therefore had no objection and neither did CAG.

00394 – 7 Brunswick Street West Hove – change of use of ground floor store to 1-bed flat

Again a reapplication, the previous one having been refused because inter alia the proposed unit would result in a cramped and substandard form of accommodation for future residents which would be of detriment to their living conditions CAG made no comment and HCS had no objection. It is difficult to see how the current application differs from the previous unsuccessful one other than the unit being described as a bedsit - it will still be cramped and sub-standard. CAG agreed to defer comment until elevation drawings and details of the proposed external works were available.

00108 – The Bungalow Hangleton Lane Hove – new residential dwelling, lowering of ground level and installation of gabions beneath listed wall

This was again a reapplication – HCS objected last time on grounds of overdevelopment of the site, loss of open space and loss of a certain amount of privacy for Rookery Cottage. CAG recommended refusal and the application was refused as being contrary to Policies QD1, QD2, QD3 and HE6 of the Local Plan  A revised Design and Access Statement now contains calculations of the garden/dwelling percentages of the proposed house and the adjoining properties – which attempt to show that although it is greater, it is not excessive. It is argued that views to Rookery Cottage from the street, currently obscured, will be opened up by the demolition of the garage of 1 Hangleton Lane and it is also argued that the proposal offers a sympathetic design to the area and has been well considered to have as little impact as possible. However HCS again objects on the same grounds as before. CAG repeated its previous comments and also added that the application would harm the existing flint wall and recommended retention of the garden space.

27 April

HL to comment

00529: 68 Western Road: Group recommended refusal – also on the grounds of inadequate room sizes, which in fact limited design options;

00060: St Augustine’s Church, A repeat application. Group still not satisfied also asked officers to examine whether dwelling sizes actually don’t cumulatively amount to overdevelopment.

00336:  24 Castle Street; Repeat application, now recommended by group for approval.

00641:  21 Sussex Square: no adverse comments

00725: The Grange Rest Home, 7-11 Sackville Gardens: This prompted a fair number of comments in terms of unsatisfactory architectural treatment (the new ‘wing’ doesn’t exactly replicate the existing building details etc). However group accepted that this was as much as we were going to get. Our comments were – no adverse observations.  

00843: Flat 6: 15 Brunswick square: The group decided to offer no comment.

00367: 43 George Street, Brighton: The group decided to offer no comment

At the end of the meeting Selma Montford on behalf of the Group thanked John Small for his Chairmanship for the last 12 years. He has now stood down.

Roger Amerena approached me to inform me that the World Heritage bid (stage 1) was now on the cards again and that a bid needed to be in by end June (?). I offered whatever help we can give and suggested that an early meeting was needed by the participating societies so we can share a clear vision.

A boards

The Report of a cross party panel of Councillors has suggested enforcement teams of civil enforcement officers, Cityclean officers and PCSO’s should be allowed to confiscate repeatedly offending items such as A boards and café tables obstructing pedestrian access on the spot. This should lead, they hope, to better street access for pedestrians.

“Major shake-up for planning process”

The Argus has reported that the whole planning process in BandH will be streamlined, with planning officers taking a “hands-on” approach to ensure applications are submitted correctly and speedily; developers of major projects being allowed to address the planning committee before an application comes before it; the relaxation of S106 requirements and the moderation of the 40% affordable housing requirements for developments over a certain size, and other changes such as the preparation of planning briefs for sites earmarked as suitable for development. A meeting to discuss these proposed changes is planned for May 11^th at the Pavilion. Although cutting through red tape and ensuring that inexperienced applicants (for whatever reason) produce proper professional plans and discuss their applications with officers in advance, something that CAG has constantly suggested, will undoubtedly save both time and money, and is to be applauded, the dangers of pandering to the whims and/or threats of developers also has to be appreciated; and HCS needs to consider the changes very carefully.